Back
2010 Supreme(Cal) 435
High Court Of Calcutta
J.K. Biswas, J.
Asim Kumar Sinha : Appellant
Versus
Konnagar Municipality : Respondent
W.P. No. 13886 (W) of 2004
Decided On : Apr 26, 2010
Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, Rini Bhattacharyya, Debabrata Karan
A resignation that is unconditional and expresses a clear intention to resign is subject to the Model Pension Rules, 1982, which provide for forfeiture of past service and consequent loss of pension in case of resignation.
Headnote:
RESIGNATION - VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT - MODEL PENSION RULES, 1982 - APPLICABILITY - FORFEITURE OF PAST SERVICE AND PENSION - PAYMENT OF GRATUITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Medical Officer in the Konnagar Municipality, submitted a resignation letter after being suspended and later reinstated. The Municipality refused to pay him pension and gratuity, citing the Model Pension Rules, 1982, which provided for forfeiture of past service and consequent loss of pension in case of resignation. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that his resignation was voluntary and hence the Model Pension Rules did not apply.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's resignation was unconditional and expressed his clear intention to resign. It further held that the Model Pension Rules were applicable to the petitioner's case and that he was not entitled to pension and gratuity under those rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's resignation was voluntary and hence not subject to the Model Pension Rules, 1982? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to pension and gratuity under the Model Pension Rules, 1982?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's resignation was unconditional and expressed his clear intention to resign. It further held that the Model Pension Rules were applicable to the petitioner's case and that he was not entitled to pension and gratuity under those rules. 2. The court held that the petitioner's resignation was unconditional and expressed his clear intention to resign. It further held that the Model Pension Rules were applicable to the petitioner's case and that he was not entitled to pension and gratuity under those rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
1. THE petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated August 20, 2004 is seeking a mandamus quashing the letter of the Chairman, Konnagar Municipality dated April 29, 2003, Annexure P8 at p.43, and commanding the Municipality and its officials to pay him all benefits with 18 per cent interest treating his resignation as a voluntary retirement.
2. BY a letter dated December 31, 1976 the Municipality appointed the petitioner to the post of Medical Officer, P.C. Dispensary and Kormagar Matrisadan-O-Sishumongal Pratisthan. BY an order dated January 8, 1977 the Special Officer and Deputy Secretary (Ex-office), Department of Health and Family Planning, Public Health Branch, Government of West Bengal approved the petitioner's appointment under section 66(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.
The Model Pension Rules for Employees of the Local Bodies in the State of West Bengal issued by the Local Government and Urban Development Department of the Government of West Bengal under Memo No. 12/C-9/ P2P3/81(104) dated April 16, 1982 provided that resignation tendered by the employee or dismissal or removal of the employee would entail forfeiture of past service and consequent loss of right to pension.
3. BY a letter dated June 10, 2000 the Chairman of the Municipality called upon the petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for neglect of duty. After considering the petitioner's reply dated June 13, 2000 the Chairman issued an order dated June 14, 2000 suspending the petitioner with immediate effect. Then by an order dated July 29, 2000 the Chairman revoked the suspension and directed the petitioner to report for duty at once.
4. INSTEAD of reporting for duty the petitioner submitted a resignation letter dated July 29, 2000, the contents whereof are as follows:
"Received your letter No. A/D/M/N/28 staff 612 in which you have withdrawn the suspension order and requested me to join immediately. Due to this suspension I had severe mental injury and mental torture and social humiliation. Due to diverse weighty causes and consideration I am unable to work any further with your municipality and hence I submit my resignation from the post of "Surgeon Superintendent" of Konnagar Matri Sadan O Sishu Mangal Pratisthan, Konnagar, Hooghly. Please arrange for payment of all my dues and oblige."
It appears from a letter of the Chairman of the Municipality dated April 29, 2003 that by a letter dated April 22, 2003 the petitioner asked the Municipality to pay him pension and gratuity. In his letter dated April 29, 2003 addressed to the petitioner, the Chairman of the Municipality stated that in view of the resignation tendered by the petitioner and the provisions of the Model Pension Rules dated April 16, 1982, the petitioner was not entitled to pension and gratuity.
5. THE petitioner submitted a representation dated February 13, 2004 claiming as follows. Since he had to resign under unavoidable circumstances, and was of the impression that he had not forgone his legitimate claims and dues for pension and gratuity, he was entitled to those benefits. He "resigned from the service not from the claims and dues." His resignation letter should be treated as an application for voluntary retirement.
6. THE Municipality's case is this. In terms of the Model Pension Rules applicable to the Municipality the petitioner, having tendered resignation, was not entitled to any pension and gratuity. He did not resign from service under any voluntary retirement scheme; nor did he apply to the Municipality seeking permission to resign from service. At the relevant time pension was payable to the employees of the Municipality under the Model Pension Rules dated April 16, 1982, not under the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, as claimed by the petitioner.
Mr Roy Chowdhury, counsel for the petitioner, has argued as follows. The petitioner was not asked to resign. He voluntarily resigned, and h
